Mozilla should hide legacy add-ons on Firefox AMO

I like Firefox AMO more than the Google Chrome Web Store, and the core reason for that is that it makes add-on discovery easier. I can sort by newest or updated for instance, something that cannot be done on Google's Chrome Web Store.

Mozilla lists featured add-ons, most popular add-ons, as well as up and coming extensions on the front page.

All add-on types that are supported by Firefox are highlighted on Firefox AMO. This includes WebExtensions and classic add-ons. The repository even lists add-ons that are no longer compatible with recent versions of the Firefox browser (due to changes to the add-ons system).

Lets take a look at featured, most popular and top rated, and the ratio of legacy add-ons and WebExtensions:

Featured Add-ons: Mozilla lists 108 featured add-ons on Firefox AMO right now. Of those 108 add-ons, 80 are legacy add-ons and 28 are compatible with Firefox 57.

Most Popular Add-ons: The first five pages of the most popular add-ons on Firefox AMO list 100 add-ons. Of those 100 add-ons, 88 are legacy add-ons and 12 WebExtensions.

Top Rated Add-ons: The first five pages of the top rated add-ons on Mozilla AMO list 100 add-ons. Of those 100 add-ons, 88 are legacy extensions and 12 WebExtensions.

Please note that this reflects the current status of the add-ons. Some add-ons, like NoScript for instance, will be released as WebExtensions before Mozilla makes the cut in Firefox 57.

So what is the problem?

The main issue with the current display of add-ons on Mozilla Firefox's add-ons repository is that Firefox users who install any legacy add-on will have those add-ons disabled in November 2017 when Firefox 57 gets released.

This can be a frustrating experience, considering that November 2017 is just around the corner. I'm not suggesting that Mozilla removes all legacy add-ons on AMO, but the organization should consider hiding those on the main entry pages.

The reasons why add-ons should not be removed are:

They are still supported right now, and will be after the release of Firefox 57 (for instance in ESR or third-party Firefox based browsers like Pale Moon).

Add-ons may be ported by their developers so that they are offered as WebExtensions.

Firefox users, especially new ones, who visit the AMO site may install legacy add-ons in the browser. Those will work just fine for the next release cycles, but won't anymore with the release of Firefox 57.

Mozilla should, at the very least, add a disclaimer or notification to the legacy add-on installation process that highlights the fact.

While tech savvy Firefox users know all about the change already, the majority of Firefox users probably does not.

Now You: What's your take on this?

Summary

Article Name

Mozilla should hide legacy add-ons on Firefox AMO

Description

Mozilla AMO, the official Firefox Add-ons repository website, lists legacy add-ons and WebExtensions when you open the site in Firefox.

Author

Martin Brinkmann

Publisher

Ghacks Technology News

Logo

Advertisement

We need your help

Advertising revenue is falling fast across the Internet, and independently-run sites like Ghacks are hit hardest by it. The advertising model in its current form is coming to an end, and we have to find other ways to continue operating this site.

We are committed to keeping our content free and independent, which means no paywalls, no sponsored posts, no annoying ad formats or subscription fees.

If you like our content, and would like to help, please consider making a contribution:

About Martin Brinkmann

Martin Brinkmann is a journalist from Germany who founded Ghacks Technology News Back in 2005. He is passionate about all things tech and knows the Internet and computers like the back of his hand.You can follow Martin on Facebook, Twitter or Google+

Comments

First of all some guy on bugzilla claims that 60% have addons installed.

Second, it relies on telemetry data from the browser so their statistics is screwed because tech-savvy people who are likely to install addons are also likely to disable telemetry. This is the report: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1229949 and you cannot even publicly see the document. We have no way to verify this. Some years ago >85% of users had addons installed, given the fact that most “normal” users moved to chrome and only the more tech-savvy users are still here, I call the 60% bullshit.

No it’s not. You may be confused with the “Catalog” page which is actually a web page, so of course it loads data from addons.mozilla.org similarly to if you visited the actual page, with a different presentation to fit the context of a catalog.

You don’t need to ever click on the catalog page though, and no network connection is made when you don’t. You can even disable that connection so that the catalog will be empty if you accidentally click on it, no network connection will occur.

My take on this is that this can be easily done by checking the user agent. Default option: hide for later browsers. Power user button on the AMO to search all addons. But knowing Mozilla they will do what they want.

I’d like to center the attention on the issue of no real replacement for Self Destructing Cookies existing yet, because Mozilla forgot to port the absolute essentials with WebExtensions:

1. All legacy add-ons still works, Firefox 57 will not arrive before the 14. November. 2. There is still Firefox ESR 52, supported until 2018. 3. All webextensions are marked as compatible with Firefox 57+. 4. If you only want to see WebExtensions you can use the “firefox57” filter. 5. There are many add-ons which are still legacy add-ons but will become WebExtensions. Hiding these add-ons means that these add-ons will not be used only because there are not a WebExtension *now*. That’s not a requirement. One example is my add-on New Tab Override. I will publish a WebExtension version. In a few months. So with your proposal you want that people use another add-on altough my add-on will be ready for Firefox 57.

I understand all that Sören. The question remains whether it is better to show all add-ons to users even though some of them will stop working in Firefox 57, or if there should be a filter to only show WebExtensions by default as this will be the standard.

I think Mozilla was thinking about proposing a WebExtension-ready alternative to incompatible add-ons right after (or before ?) a user updates to Firefox 57. They’d be warned even if no replacement exists.

I’m not sure about this info though.

Hiding add-ons would provoke an outcry I guess, Mozilla is evil, poor add-on developers, why would they do this, yada yada.

IMO they just have to make sure enough add-ons or replacements are ready and let people know about disabled ones on update. People affected by this and who care usually know what an add-on is and how they got it, I think, no ? Ad blockers may be an exception but they should be ready on time.

Mozilla intends on letting users know which add-ons are Legacy through the Add-on Manager in Firefox 55, even so, I do agree that Mozilla should be more overt about this change by making it clearly visible on their add-ons repository site

@ ww com Also, for the Pale Moon users that want those old plugins, they host their own plugins page. Or else they can just download the older versions now. But the MAJORITY of those plugin and complete themes are incompatible with Firefox post-Australis.

You are further ignoring the part where the replacement addon “Cookie-AutoDelete” cannot offer the full functionality of “Self Destructing Cookies” because Mozilla didn’t do their job on porting all features Chrome’s WebExtension offers:https://github.com/mrdokenny/Cookie-AutoDelete/issues/44

It is nice how you tell the users to rather get exiled and alienated on the ESR 52 (which I use) rather than simply adding the requested features “browsingData API” which even Chrome has, than fixing the issue.

Instead of setting up smoke screens and distractions, how about adressing these issues? SDC has 209,822 users and the replacement is being stalled in it’s development by sheer disinterest on the subject.

Apologetic rhethorics won’t help, as much as i RESPECT you as a person.

I don’t know what your comment has to do with my comment (you answered to my comment)…

For example:

> You are further ignoring the part where the replacement addon “Cookie-AutoDelete” cannot offer the full functionality of “Self Destructing Cookies” because Mozilla didn’t do their job on porting all features Chrome’s WebExtension offers

How can you say that I ignore this if my comment is not about this topic at all? I said with my comment that Mozilla should NOT hide legacy add-ons before 2018…

> It is nice how you tell the users to rather get exiled and alienated on the ESR 52 (which I use) rather than simply adding the requested features “browsingData API” which even Chrome has, than fixing the issue.

I didn’t said anything like that… I said that Firefox ESR 52 is supported until 2018 and Mozilla can not and Mozilla should not make a bad user experience for supported Firefox versions.

And how can I “simply adding the requested features “browsingData API”? Only because I developed a few add-ons for Firefox I can’t add add-on APIs, I have nothing to do with the development of Firefox…

> Instead of setting up smoke screens and distractions, how about adressing these issues?

What can *I* do as Firefox user and why is it my job? I have nothing to do with Firefox APIs, I have nothing to do with this add-on and I have no interest in this add-on.

1. A large number of FF users are not knowledgeable “geeks” like many of Martin’s readers. Many of them do not read technical blogs so are unaware of what will happen to Legacy Add-Ons in November. 2. For the same reason, many users have not heard of FF 52 ESR and do not know what ESR means. 3. When installing an Add-On, if it is a LEGACY Add-On there is a small orange triangle containing a red “!”. Next to it is a clickable link to “permissions”. When the “permissions” box opens the following is displayed: “Please note this add-on uses legacy technology, which gives it access to all browser functions and data without requesting your permission.” There is NO WARNING that a Legacy Add-On will STOP working in FF 57. 4. Referring back to 1. above, many users will not use the FF 57 filter because of lack of knowledge. 5. Read Martin’s comments reference the number of web extensions Add-Ons compared to Legacy Add-Ons. Pontificating about your “Tab Override” Add-On becoming a web extension DOES NOT alter the fact that HUNDREDS of Add-Ons will stop working. In fact I do not care if users use a replacement for your Add-On. If that upsets you then so be it !

Many average FF users have FF auto update enabled so they will get a nasty surprise in November when Legacy Add-Ons stop working. NB I am using FF52.2 ESR

@T J: I know this only happens once in a decade, but I have to side with Hentzschel here. There is no need to delete those add-ons as long as Firefox 52 ESR is still supported. That is, if they take their business policy seriously.

As for him posting ads for his non-important add-on: What did you expect?

> 2. For the same reason, many users have not heard of FF 52 ESR and do not know what ESR means.

That was not my point at all. My point was that Mozilla can not and should not hide legacy add-ons from AMO as long as Firefox ESR is a supported version. It doesn’t matter how many people know Firefox ESR. It only matters that Firefox ESR 52 is supported so Mozilla has to support Firefox ESR on AMO, too.

> 5. Read Martin’s comments reference the number of web extensions Add-Ons compared to Legacy Add-Ons. Pontificating about your “Tab Override” Add-On becoming a web extension DOES NOT alter the fact that HUNDREDS of Add-Ons will stop working.

Even if that’s true that hundreds of add-ons will stop working with Firefox 57, it has NOTHING to do with my 5th point. In my 5th point I said that there are a lot of add-ons which WILL become a WebExtension and the proposal is bad for all these add-ons.

@Appster:

> As for him posting ads for his non-important add-on: What did you expect?

Of course you have to say anything against me. You seems to need that… There is no “ad” in my comment. I am a developer of several add-ons and it’s clear (for everyone but you) that I can speak only for the plans of my add-ons.

And really, it’s not up to you to decide if an add-on with more than 100.000 users is important or not. For more than 100.000 users it’s at least important enough… I really don’t know why you have make it bad. If you don’t need the add-on, great. It’s really great if you are happy without it! But your comment is not okay. And you uses almost *every* opportunity to say anything bad about me or my work as all regular Ghacks readers know…

So you have only one successful add-on. I understand that you try to promote this one further, but really, there is no need to talk about it in every comment of yours. Note that I am not judging the quality of the add-on. It is not bad, which I know because I’m also using it (Does this surprise you? Yeah, I don’t hold the add-on accountable for its developer).

> I really don’t know why you have make it bad.

I didn’t. As per its user numbers it is not among the top add-ons. This is objectively true and has nothing to do with “making it bad”. Again, I’m not judging the add-on by its quality, but by the quantity of its user numbers.

> And you uses almost *every* opportunity to say anything bad about me or my work as all regular Ghacks readers know…

Stop denouncing me, Mr Hentzschel. All I was saying again and again is that you are defending Mozilla any chance you get. And this is also something “regular Ghacks readers” know… And I was saying that you are not as neutral as you like to present yourself due to you being a former Mozilla Representative. I was never talking about the quality of your blog being bad or you being a bad person in general. I believe you are highly biased, that’s all. It’s not my problem that you take issue with my perception of you…

I’m tipping like most things Mozilla the release dates for WebExtensions may get pushed back, like e10s did. I’m curious to know after the switch is final though and the ESRs are out of support if they will stop hosting them altogether.

So in November this is what my extensions will look like (assuming no change):

Disconnect Ghostery

This is unworkable for me. Unless Mozilla starts baking in to the browser the features of these addons or persuades developers to update their addons or actually devotes a team to help update legacy addons, then the vast majority of users will just switch to Chrome / Chromium.

As usual you have to have a good look at the settings removing 3rd party cookies etc. and poke around opera://flags and disable anything privacy invasive. It also comes with a VPN of sorts – think more geo restrictions remove than true anonymity.

You can control weak ciphers by the way in which you launch Opera Developer:

If you don’t want Opera (Or Chromium) storing a local cache then you can lock the caching directory to root privileges (delete everything inside first):

~/.cache/opera-developer/Cache

~/.cache/chromium

I’ve been testing this quite a lot and as far as I can tell it works reasonably well.

I really like Mozilla and I regularly use Firefox and Thunderbird but at the rate at which Mozilla is pushing the self destruct button, I can’t see them being a significant force in the future. I think the last blow will be when distros drop Firefox and Thunderbird from their default applications in favour of Chromium. A sad day indeed – can you imagine how Google Chrome will become without any true opposition? A privacy induced nightmare with adverts rammed into your eyeballs at every opportunity. I’d rather switch off the internet than pass that on to future generations.

One Clang, Rust and Autoconf2.13(?) install later and Waterfox has compiled. It’s fast compared with Firefox – approximately 18% quicker. No idea why – maybe because I compiled it.

To Run: ./mach run

Some things to bear in mind: A vulnerable Quicktime Plugin is installed WebRTC is enabled by default TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (0xa) WEAK cipher installed TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0x2f) Could be switched off TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0x35) Could be switched off

After making the above changes and installing Adblock Plus, Better Privacy, Canvas Fingerprint Blocker, Disconnect, DNSSEC/TLSA Validator, Ghostery, HTTPS Everywhere, No Resource URI Leak and NoScript, it works well. Quite impressed, although if I was the developer I would remove that weak cipher and Quicktime Plugin.

> A one man operation that may go the way Cyberfox will by the end of the year. I wouldn’t invest too much in that.

You know nothing about alternative Firefox builds, do you? Cyberfox’ selling point was the built-in Classic Theme Restorer extension. CTR will die when Firefox 57 hits. So the Cyberfox dev chose the last ESR version before that (Firefox 52 ESR) which he will maintain until its EOL. Cyberfox would not be Cyberfox anymore, so he chose to end the project. Waterfox never incorporated any add-on, it just introduced some user-friendly changes (no telemetry, no DRM, no ads, NPAPI plug-ins still working, unsigned extensions still working) which he can likely still keep up in builds based on Firefox 57+. The Cyberfox-Waterfox comparison shows that you have no clue at all.

> An antique run by a couple of Luddites who think FF (and the web as a whole) should cater to them instead of the other way around. Delusional at best.

There is very few breakage to be seen when using the Pale moon browser, so you are a bit exaggerating here. However, you are right about their general attitude. Can’t argue about that really.

> Probably the best choice but as you say, it’s temporary and won’t be around in another year.

True. This still shows that Mozilla doesn’t take businesses seriously though. Introducing big changes mid-cycle is not business-oriented. They should postpone these changes to Firefox 60, so that Firefox 59 ESR can still be used by organizations in preparation for the big changeover.

I’m surprised that you don’t see any longevity in Waterfox as an option. Alex had been discussing a workable set of builds that allow users to choose between an updateable ESR-style build and a WebExtensions style build. He seemed pretty determined about the future. Perhaps you may know better though.

I still use Pale Moon (as of right now, it still works perfectly and fast on sites I use) but I know that will be short lived. And since I really can’t get behind the team spirit there (one-sided and toxic at best), I see a change in the future. I’m somewhat enthusiastic about Vivaldi, but I’m interested in the Photon interface proposed for Firefox 57 onwards.

You tell me. He seems to have accepted this change far better than you have.

> The Waterfox dev does what Mozilla should have done – creating an ESR version out of the last XUL build.

That can’t possibly last indefinitely. Not for a one-man operation. He is only delaying the inevitable and giving people more time. But sooner or later they will have to deal with it.

> The current WebExtensions APIs are a joke, no wonder he first wants to create an ESR for his users. And “future”… Honestly, functionally they will be lacking. Can this really be described as “future” with a positive connotation? Or are you more like “Time goes by and things get worse, but hey – it’s the future!”

Sure, he could do what Pale Moon does and stick with the past. And as time goes on, he will become further and further irrelevant just as Pale Moon is. That doesn’t sound like a bright and promising future to me. At least the developer of Cyberfox has been realistic about it.

> and the Waterfox dev has already stated that he will keep producing builds based on corresponding Firefox 57+ versions.

And as I said, even that can’t last indefinitely. Not unless he wants to deal with websites that won’t render properly over a period of time like Pale Moon has. But if the developer of Waterfox wants to become as delusional as Moonchild is, then that’s his right.

> You know nothing about alternative Firefox builds, do you?

Actually I use Cyberfox portable along with Opera portable, Chromium portable and SRWare Iron portable. I’ll be sad to see it go. If Waterfox came out with a 32bit version, I’d be using it too.

> Waterfox never incorporated any add-on, it just introduced some user-friendly changes (no telemetry, no DRM, no ads, NPAPI plug-ins still working, unsigned extensions still working) which he can likely still keep up in builds based on Firefox 57+

But those webpages he relies on from Mozilla for unsigned extensions will eventually be pulled. What then? Will he host them himself? I hope you send him money to help him do that when the time comes. Really. Then I’ll be on board.

> The Cyberfox-Waterfox comparison shows that you have no clue at all.

They’re both hanging by their fingernails and have been living on Mozilla’s coat tails for far too long. Now that rug is being pulled. That’s all the clue I need.

> There is very few breakage to be seen when using the Pale moon browser, so you are a bit exaggerating here.

Banking websites are broken all the time. No need to do banking online. Just use the mail and carrier pigeon. Https? Good grief, how can anybody be against that.

> They should postpone these changes to Firefox 60, so that Firefox 59 ESR can still be used by organizations in preparation for the big changeover.

And how much time should they give? Two years? Five years? Or maybe indefinitely and hope they forget the whole thing. Hmmm?

> I’m surprised that you don’t see any longevity in Waterfox as an option. Alex had been discussing a workable set of builds that allow users to choose between an updateable ESR-style build and a WebExtensions style build.

And how does he plan on dealing with all those legacy add-ons once FF ESR finally pulls the plug? Will he host them all, himself?

And how will they be maintained and updated?

No offense, but color me skeptical. That sounds like an expensive proposition to me.

AMO already checks the visitor’s Firefox configuration to fade add-ons which are incompatible either with the user’s platform or with the user’s Firefox version (i.e. the ‘Hide Spoilers!’ add-on, faded here with the mention when hovered “Not available for Firefox 52” — I’m running indeed 52ESR), so why not imagine that all add-ons remain in place and have those available only as legacy faded when the check shows the user runs Firefox 57? I guess it wouldn’t be tactful for Firefox 57+ users which could feel discriminated compared to pre-57 Firefox users, which will happen to be true! This couldn’t last forever but should at least until the EOL of Firefox 57ESR. That’s how I see it at this time.

Nobody cares what Firefox 57+ users need or want. They could just as well move on to Chrome and would not even notice a difference in functionality. The true fans will sit it out on ESR first and will then move on to other alternatives.

As you know (we’ve debated over this, haven’t we?!) I remain an observer quietly back the front-line with my Firefox 52ESR… and I observe! At this time I feel a move to Waterfox at latest at the EOL of Firefox 57ESR as most likely (50%+1)! — All depends on those of my important legacy add-ons which will happen or not to be upgraded to the Webextensions format with FULL equivalent functionality. As an example of an add-on I consider essential, mentioned often and in above comments as well is the “Self-Destructing Cookies” add-on : if unusable I will definitely quit Firefox at the EOL of Firefox 57. But we are not yet arrived to that FF57ESR EOL. Things change so quickly nowadays …

@Tom Hawack: We have talked about this, yeah. What really amazes me though is that Mozilla really dares to use the Firefox name for this product. What of their original values is still represented in there? If they would be honest – and not the cowards that they are – they wouldn’t name this software Firefox. As for Self-Destructing Cookies: This add-on does not even support e10s as far as I’m aware, so how can you expect it to be ported to the WebExtension format? You’ll have to wait for a long, long time if you expect equal functionality. Mozilla is determined to go through with the destruction of Firefox and so are the fanboys still defending them.

Up until now nobody managed to fully explain to me what will set Firefox 57+ apart! Some competition for Blink? Oh please, “competition” (ideological) does not equal “functionality” (factual)…

@Ding ding dong: Hopefully you know that the modern web doesn’t really work without cookies anymore, so should know that the “privacy” aspecr is pretty mute at this point. But I will prove my point by showing you selected about:config settings jeopardizing privacy:

– “extensions.getAddons.cache.enabled” is true by default. It sends information about what add-ons you have installed to Mozilla. It is not related to the add-on update process. Why does Mozilla collect such data? – “network.captive-portal-service.enabled” contacts the following website… http://detectportal.firefox.com/success.txt …every single time you connect to a new WiFi hotspot, even if your computer handles the WiFi hotspot all by itself already. Why does Firefox need to do this? – “security.family_safety.mode” is set to 2 by default. It will censor content Microsoft wants to be censored via a local man-in-the-middle proxy in Windows 10. – “dom.event.clipboardevents.enabled” is set to true by default. It reports to the website owner every cut/copy/paste you perform on his website. Veeery private… – “dom.battery.enabled” is set to true by default. Websites can access your battery count and related information, e.g. what programs you use. Mozilla allows this by default. – “beacon.enabled” is set to true by default. Website owners are able to receive information from Firefox once you’ve left the website. Only useful for tracking, and Mozilla allows this by default.

So please, don’t just repeat what others say while not knowing anything about the default settings, which definitely allow for your privacy to be evaded. Guess what? I’ve disabled all of them and haven’t seen any breakage.

Customisability? Source? Most add-on which could massively customize the interface will be gone when Firefox 57 hits. I want you to give me reasons to use Firefox 57 and beyond, and this is definitely not one.

Next Gen performance? You really believe that? When will it hit? In 20 years? Will Mozilla even be relevant at this point? I don’t give credit for promises, only for facts.

@Tom Hawack: I actually meant both. Firefox 57+ will fall short in comparison to Firefox 56 in terms of functionality, that’s no secret and hardly deniable. Really, it doesn’t even offer substantial advantages over some competitors. Vivaldi is a great example: I will have the same kind of limited extensions there, I can also change the UI via CSS code, so why should I mess around with Firefox 57? At some point Vivaldi will have the better default options as well. So when Firefox 52 ESR reaches its EOL and should no fork take its place I’ll make the switch to Vivaldi. I’m totally boycotting Firefox 57+, both because Mozilla doesn’t care about power users anymore and because they have totally betrayed their original values.

He mentioned Blink-based browsers so I went for it. Firefox-based browsers aren’t competitors IMO, they’re probably the actual opposite.

But compared to Firefox pre-57, post-57 will have superior privacy and superior performance and stability. How noticeably customisability will be affected by Firefox 65 remains to be seen. about:config and userChrome.css remain, the rest depends on API development which is an unknown. We’ve gone through this a bunch of times so no need to waste our lives once more writing walls of text :)

I must say tha about:config default settings you mention are quite edifying not to mention other settings which, by default, are known, have been and remain emphasized on my Firefox about:config reference, that of Pants’ GHacks user.js

I confirm my commitment to Firefox but at the same time I must admit that I’ve never understood why some settings (mainly those only available in about:config, some of which even “hidden”!) are opposite to a user’s privacy in such a flagrant way. This is in contradiction seems to me with the Firefox credo, that od being #1 browser in terms of users’ privacy. I guess I live this contradiction knowing settings are available to the user and forgetting that a newbie is likely to take, use the browser as it is.

@Tom Hawack: Mozilla ain’t any good, plain and simple. I love to bust the privacy myth when it comes to Firefox. Some people really believe they are more private once they’ve installed Firefox… I never thought so. I have a natural distrust in me and more often than not my suspicions prove true. Just because Mozilla claims to protect the privacy of their users doesn’t mean they actually do. Do you really believe Yahoo! or Google would donate to a project that could threaten their business? They would seek to destroy such a project, rather than aiding it. Mozilla just assumes that most people won’t mess around with hidden settings too much – and frankly, they are right.

Wow. Straightforward. Uppercut. Perfidy is not applicable, for sure :)

Perfection is not of this world (no hurry here to discover where it is). In terms in comparison Firefox is still my choice, for the time being anyway. You like, favor Vivaldi I think. I haven’t tried that one yet. Nice name, hoping it brings more Summer lights than Winter storms :)

Ah ah, privacy myth. I said I would not waste time especially discussing with someone who has an unmovable grief against Mozilla, but I hope Tom knows about Tor Browser, the Tor uplift, the built-in passive protections, the stronger capabilities of content blocking and filtering of Firefox, the market-unique support for protections as potent and varied as NoScript’s, all the precautions Mozilla takes in its data collection practises, and how they provide ways to opt out for real. Also how transparent and documented all of this is.

Clipboard event, battery API and beacon are web standards or candidates. And in spite of that the battery API thing is being removed, and the anti-fingerprinting team is looking at a bunch of web standards, from big ones like Canvas and WebGL to smaller like Gamepad API or whatever, so they can be neutered if the user opts into active protection.

I missed stuff, there’s more, but go ahead, find another browser that does 1% of what I’m listing. The only one is Tor Browser and it’s based on Firefox ESR and the teams are working closely to backport Tor’s years of improvements.

> What really amazes me though is that Mozilla really dares to use the Firefox name for this product. What of their original values is still represented in there? If they would be honest – and not the cowards that they are – they wouldn’t name this software Firefox.

Why is that ‘amazing’? They own the trademark. Do you want to buy it off them?

> As for Self-Destructing Cookies: This add-on does not even support e10s as far as I’m aware, so how can you expect it to be ported to the WebExtension format?

How do you know it won’t be? Are you 100% sure about that? Or is this speculating with crystal balls again.

> Mozilla is determined to go through with the destruction of Firefox and so are the fanboys still defending them.

Again, I have a wait & see attitude. Not filled with hyperbole and excessive hand-wringing.

> So please, don’t just repeat what others say while not knowing anything about the default settings, which definitely allow for your privacy to be evaded. Guess what? I’ve disabled all of them and haven’t seen any breakag

So what are you complaining about? You were able to make the change and either disable or enable each one of them. Do you think Chrome based browsers would allow you this much latitude?

The biggest question is why haven’t you switched to Vivaldi yet? With all the Mozilla stress, what are you waiting for?

> Why is that ‘amazing’? They own the trademark. Do you want to buy it off them?

They can mess with their trademark all they like. And people can have an opinion on that all they like. Firefox was all about extensibility, which was a major selling point. Ripping that out and still calling this software Firefox is a highly dishonest joke. Care to explain why you think this should be my business?

> How do you know it won’t be? Are you 100% sure about that? Or is this speculating with crystal balls again.

Five minutes of research would have been enough to find out, yet I still have to do it for you (citing the Self-Destructing Cookis AMO page FAQ):

“Q: Will this add-on ever be multi-process (e10s) compatible? A: Add-ons can’t monitor sites’ LocalStorage usage in e10s mode. This functionality will probably never be restored for legacy add-ons such as SDC. This means that the answer is “very likely never”. You can still force-enable e10s and SDC should clean your cookies just fine, but it can only clean your LocalStorage when the browser starts.

Q: Will this add-on make the jump to the WebExtension world? A: I don’t have the time for a full rewrite as a WebExtension. Enjoy it while it lasts.”

e10s is also a requirement for every WebExtension… “Or is this speculating with crystal balls again.” – Nice shot in your own foot right there.

> Again, I have a wait & see attitude. Not filled with hyperbole and excessive hand-wringing.

You see, if an organization betrays its users not only praise will come around. Extensibility was heavily advertised in the past, and many people started using Firefox because of that. Do you really think those people have no right to complain? Now you will certainly come up with the typical “You got Firefox for free, so you have no right to complain!” bullshit argument. Guess what? I have paid with my data and Mozilla still relies on significant user numbers if they want website maintainers to support them! If they piss off the majority of the user base (which they already have – Firefox used to have double its share in the past) they can be in the same position as Opera quicker than say can say “Pocket”…

> So what are you complaining about? You were able to make the change and either disable or enable each one of them.

Obviously you failed to understand that I was not talking about myself here. I was talking about the millions of users Mozilla is deceiving with their supposed protection of privacy. How many people do you think change those hidden settings? Mozilla does not offer a privacy-oriented product by default and assumes that the majority of the userbase does not have the skills/means to change those settings. Those settings are not even in the preferences pane but HIDDEN! Their privacy argument is highly deceiving, why are you defending that at all?

> Do you think Chrome based browsers would allow you this much latitude?

Yeah, you can change those flags in Chromium-based browsers as well. Surprised?

> The biggest question is why haven’t you switched to Vivaldi yet? With all the Mozilla stress, what are you waiting for?

Again, I’m in no hurry. Firefox 52 ESR will be around until mid-2018, so I can wait and see what happens in the meantime. Vivaldi will further mature for sure, I’m using it for testing purposes currently.

> Ripping that out and still calling this software Firefox is a highly dishonest joke. Care to explain why you think this should be my business?

Because you don’t own the trademark, that’s why. They can call it Joe Blow’s Ice Cream browser if they’re in a mind to. Or is this just more sour grapes by making ridiculous statements again?

> Self-Destructing Cookis AMO page FAQ (snip)

But you already knew this old fashioned plug-in was ending. So what.

> e10s is also a requirement for every WebExtension… “Or is this speculating with crystal balls again.” – Nice shot in your own foot right there.

That’s not to say a WebExtensions equivalent won’t appear in the future. Flawed crystal balls, yes. You act like it’s the end of the world and nothing will ever be created to replace it, for ever and ever and ever…

Again, wait and see what the future brings. You might be pleasantly surprised in spite of all your negativity.

> You see, if an organization betrays its users not only praise will come around. Extensibility was heavily advertised in the past, and many people started using Firefox because of that. Do you really think those people have no right to complain? Now you will certainly (snip…snip…yabada)

Things change. We have to learn to adapt. I don’t like all change, either. Do you think I won’t lose anything when they make this change at the end of the year? Do you really believe that?

I think it’s going to be a better browser. Less customizable by your standards, but everything has trade-offs. Just like Australis did.

> Their privacy argument is highly deceiving, why are you defending that at all?

I’m not. I agree with you on that particular point. They should’ve been disabled by default, but if one is savvy enough to use Firefox, then one should be savvy enough to learn how to disable them. Mozilla could easily have locked those settings down the way Google has with their equivalent telemetry, but they didn’t. That’s still in our favor.

> Yeah, you can change those flags in Chromium-based browsers as well. Surprised?

Can you really? Or do you only THINK you can? Have you tested to see if those changes really had any effect?

I’m pretty hostile to Chrome and don’t use it very much, but you don’t see me crying about it all the time, either.

> Firefox 52 ESR will be around until mid-2018, so I can wait and see what happens in the meantime.

So why continue to use a browser you clearly hate? That makes absolutely no sense. I choose not to use Windows 10. Nobody’s forcing me to. I leave the ridiculous hyperbole and excessive hand-wringing over that for others to deal with. Saves on a lot of stress.

What’s worse are the myriad tech sites still promoting “The Best Firefox Add-ons for 2017.” When tech writers are promoting legacy add-ons without a clue that those add-ons are soon-to-be obsolete and non-funtioning, it is a sad state of affairs.

I decided to turn off all of the Legacy Add-ons from the Firefox browser that I use to prepare myself for the grand add-on deprecation event scheduled for Firefox 57, the add-ons that were disabled are as follows:

Of the above-mentioned add-ons, I am less worried about losing some of the convenience related add-ons, however what really worries me are security and performance related add-ons

One of the major inconveniences that I have noticed so far is that webpages seem to take a lot longer to load (I have not checked if Ghostry is behind that, I have temporarily substituted it for uBlock Origin), things do not seem so bad aside from that, however, I will be sure to check the status of the aforementioned Legacy Add-ons nearing the end of the year so that they can be re-instituted into the browser

Future article topics that I would highly recommend are ‘WebExtension Substitutes for Legacy Add-ons’ and ‘Top WebExtensions for Firefox’

Thanks for sharing your experience XenoSilvano but frankly, when I see all those little gems left-aside (some more gems than others!) I feel, how to say, desperate. I know that I’m not ready to swap a handful of diamonds for a silver-plated browser, I can tell ya’ :)

I just want to mention that Firefox users are not the only ones who use the legacy addons in AMO – those addons are also available to users of Pale Moon and Waterfox (and others). And the last time I checked, both Pale Moon and Waterfox planned to support legacy addons even after Firefox stops. I’m not sure what will happen with the addon-review process for new legacy-style addons, though.

But Pale Moon won’t handle Webextensions as far as I know. Hybrid is what I have in mind, the browser handling both Legacy add-ons and Webextensions. Waterfox does, as Firefox until its 57 version. What will become of Waterfox after Firefox 56, that’s what I don’t know.

Their ESR idea looks like it is only a transitional band aid. They too think that WebExtensions are the future, though they aren’t ready for prime time yet. Eventually Mozilla will take down those web pages since they aren’t under any obligation to keep them up after their own ESR makes the transition. Will Waterfox produce their own webpages to make up for that?

Yes, it’s meant for a transition period. What’s the problem? The Waterfox dev does what Mozilla should have done – creating an ESR version out of the last XUL build. Why should his users miss out on the improvements implemented in FF 53-56?

> They too think that WebExtensions are the future, though they aren’t ready for prime time yet.

The current WebExtensions APIs are a joke, no wonder he first wants to create an ESR for his users. And “future”… Honestly, functionally they will be lacking. Can this really be described as “future” with a positive connotation? Or are you more like “Time goes by and things get worse, but hey – it’s the future!”

> Eventually Mozilla will take down those web pages since they aren’t under any obligation to keep them up after their own ESR makes the transition.

True, but that’s not before the release of Firefox 61 (EOL Firefox 52 ESR) I assume. And even then the WebExtensions that were compatible with Firefox 56 will run in Waterfox 56, so the users will not be left with no add-ons exactly. In regards to the XUL add-ons you are right though.

> Will Waterfox produce their own webpages to make up for that?

I don’t know. But – as you have pointed out – the ESR version will not stay forever, and the Waterfox dev has already stated that he will keep producing builds based on corresponding Firefox 57+ versions. It is what it is, a transitional build. Not sure why maintaining own add-on sites would make sense in this context. Nobody knows really.

> Pale Moon does a lot of stupid things. Are you really surprised? Color me surprised if you are. I won’t mind. ;)

Not surprised at all. The Pale Moon devs also expect companies like Facebook to cater to them. WebExtensions will be capable enough for simple tasks like adblocking, video downloading, HTTPS Everywhere etc. There is no need to force add-on devs to create a XUL/XPCOM add-on which does the same. I would have liked to see them supporting both types of add-ons. Since every major browser (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera) will support the same or very similar type of extension it will prove disastrous to completely miss out on that. They really expect add-on developers to maintain a separate add-on for them. Won’t happen.

Side-note : I’ve tested Waterfox 54.0 (latest is 54.0.0.1) a few days ago and noticed that one add-on (among 68 of mine) just wouldn’t run : CheckmyHTTPS. I notified this on Waterfox’s Github page, waiting for a reply : [https://github.com/MrAlex94/Waterfox/issues/169]

Odd. we know Waterfox removes privacy-related settings from Firefox, but does it add any sensible code?

@Tom Hawack: Hm, odd. Waterfox shouldn’t run into problems with any Firefox extension, at all. The issue is likely very specific since it only affects one single add-on. You should notify the CheckMyHTTPS author via a review at AMO as well, so that he may also look into the problem.

Let me add that you should really create a new profile for Waterfox. Mozilla introduces changes in Firefox 55 so that the profile will not be backwards-compatible with previous Firefox versions anymore. Waterfox will likely have the same problem, breaking your Firefox 52 ESR setup.

@Appster, I had created a new profile for Waterfox as I mentioned on the Github page I pointed above, where I also explained that I had tried Firefox 54 in order to know if the CheckmyHTTPS add-on issue was related to the Firefox 54 version or was specific of Waterfox 54.

Because CheckmyHTTPS encountered no issue with Firefox 54 I cannot mention the Waterfox 54 issue to the developer of CheckmyHTTPS, he’d tell me to contact the Waterfox dev and he’d be right. Happens to be what I did on Waterfox’s Github page. Waiting for a reply. Really odd.

Further more, had a look at Waterfox’s Reddit pages and I do notice quite many issues. Not sure this browser, as I perceive it now with limited information may be an alternative to Firefox.

You mention a Waterfox ESR whereby benefits of v53 to v56 are intact. Would not some stuff be deprecated by then by Mozilla, diminishing its value somewhat? That seemed to be how it appears , but I’d certainly go for an v56 ESR.

Moonchild swears he won’t need to rebase Pale Moon any more, but I fail to see how that can happen. How will he be able to create updates for code that is no longer developed? We’ll see.

@Tom Hawack: I see, sorry that I missed it. Of course it’s a Waterfox-specific issue if the add-on runs fine in the corresponding Firefox version, never doubted that. Still it’s odd, because Waterfox should have nearly optimal compatibility with Firefox extensions.

However, we are talking about 1 add-on here. Could have been worse.

If I were you I would report this issue to the add-on dev as well. Pale Moon users do that all the time if a specific add-on is not optimized for their browser. You should give the author a chance to look into this as well. I doubt that he will point to Firefox without even attempting to fix the issue in conjunction with Waterfox.

Furthermore the Waterfox Reddit shows issues only a few users are affected by, sometimes these issues even stem from the underlying Firefox code. This is the case with every browser. Not sure where you see an exceptional amount of issues. Check out the Firefox Reddit, you’ll see as many issues there.

@JodyThornton: As far as XUL/XPCOM add-on compatibility is concerned Firefox 56 will be fine. Also it will be the most advanced XUL version of Firefox. What do you think is going to become deprecated in that version?

Moonchild has already been proven wrong. He had to rebase from Gecko 24 (used in Pale Moon 26) to Gecko 38 (used in Pale Moon 27) in order to fix web incompatibilities. He’ll rebase it once more. Will be interesting to see what happens post-Firefox 57 though, as Mozilla will no longer support technologies he tries to keep afloat.

I was of the understanding that as v53 to v56 were released, features that are part of XUL and XPCOM would be removed piece meal, so that little by little, the older environment would be dismantled. That’s why I had believed a v56 rebase for either Waterfox or Pale Moon would represent a compromise. I guess I was wrong. :)

I’m dreaming of a pre-57 Firefox [clone] to remain afield. I want my XUL. I’ve already switched to Waterfox with a decent hope. Waterfox supports all the current addons (Pale Moon doesn’t really, due to it’s being Firefox 27 underneath).

But I’ve seen where the Pale Moon authour has cloned the FF code already in preparation.

Well too be fair, the interface is pre-Australis (v27 if you like), but the Gecko release Plae Moon was based on is v38. I wonder if a v56 rebase might not be needed though. I find v38 is starting to show its age with some things. But Pale Moon is running well as it stands for now.

I will have to give Waterfox some more consideration, but I do also like Vivaldi.

I’m afraid we won’t have the choice : mutations (death included) are inevitable :) Maybe cryogenics could come in handy : wake me up when legacy add-ons will have made their way back. Not sure in that case I ever get called back from eternity… :)

This article wanting to hide Legacy add-ons make me think to ungrateful people wanting to get rid of their parents by placing them prematurely in a retirement home. As long as you will be hidden from their eyes, cryonics or retirement home will make no difference to them ;)

Not seeing a reason to update from 46 with updates off the addons as well. Some of them have been updated a bit claim they still work fully yet do not. I’d rather use FF 46 and my add ons for normal surfing and Edge for buying and banking.

Don’t forget that updates include security as well. This is why I opted for Firefox ESR, latest is 52.x, in order to not be bothered by latest “innovations” but keep being protected since ESR updates include only security issues.

No script, flash block, malware bytes I have more than enough to fight common exploits,ect without the need of updates. And I hate to say that , I really do but I give up I’d rather have my stuff working than not and chrome is just not an option at all google has handicapped half the decent extensions. Its a shame its hell to run 2 different versions of FF with 2 different sets of addons if I could run both I could make do but i don’t really want to use sandboxie for it….

You know Firefox 52 ESR exists, and many users will not accept a new version without their precious addons so Mozilla should be wise not to hide existing FUNCTIONAL add-ons. They already have the ability to mark addons as incompatible when assessing the useragent, so do that for v 57+ browsers!

What an ignorance and arrogance. After reading an article about FF 57 I updated my perfectly working FF to 57, and WITHOUT A WARNING it disabled almost all of my addons. Why not give me the choice as to what is more important to me, an FF upgrade or retaining the functionality of my addons? Many of those are essential to my browser usage. Some are important for my professional work. I had just found a dynamic resolution switcher addon for the work with my laptop in conjunction with a 4k monitor. Now it’s all junk again. I was just hoping to be able to finally use hardware acceleration in this damned browser without getting the diagonal tearing with my damned NVidia Optimus graphics shitup, which doesn’t happen in Chrome. What a self-serving, self-absorbed company has Mozilla become. Show some understanding and respect for the user, please.

About gHacks

Ghacks is a technology news blog that was founded in 2005 by Martin Brinkmann. It has since then become one of the most popular tech news sites on the Internet with five authors and regular contributions from freelance writers.